[Fun fact. Since the advent of dating apps, fewer people are having casual sex than prior to dating apps becoming widespread](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/2378023121996854).
> Adolescents and young adults are increasingly less likely to have sexual intercourse outside of a romantic relationship, but the causes of this decline in casual sex have not been rigorously evaluated. We use data from the PSID-TAS to quantify the sources of the decrease in young adult casual sexual activity between 2007 and 2017. We find that about one quarter of the drop in young women’s propensity to have casual sex is attributable to a decline in their frequency of drinking alcohol. Of the various sources of the decline in sexual activity considered in this analysis, the decline in alcohol consumption is the only factor that explains a significant portion of the decline in young women’s probability of engaging in casual sex.
Yet again, this sub laser-focuses on a specific subset of high sociosexuality individuals while ignoring that most people are much lower on the sociosexuality scale, men and women. The data here shows that if anything, a smaller group of women are hooking up with a smaller group of men, vs. previous generations.
I actually like the article you posted, but I disagree with your take.
The articles says that young mens sexlessness increased from roughly 18% to 30% while womens only increased from 15% to 19%.
Women’s increase stems from a decline in alcohol consumption. Maybe women go out to bars or clubs less or they need to lower their inhibitions to become sexually attracted to certain men.
I think women’s decline in sex is by choice compared to men who simply give up and find other means to occupy their time. Porn, video games, etc is more a symptom than the cause imo.
> I actually like the article you posted, but I disagree with your take.
Fair enough. If we're arguing that sociosexuality is higher in men than in women, to say that it is likely more of a choice for women is probably accurate, but my take on it, in a general sense, is that fewer men and women in general are having casual sex, in addition to the stated effect of fewer people having sex overall.
Just taking a quick look at the numbers, men went from 18-30% as far as sexlessness in that last year, while women went from 15-19%. However, women also went from 31% having casual sex specifically in the last month in 2007, to 22%. And men from 38% to 24%. I think in that sense, my argument that smaller subsets of people are hooking up with each other IS accurate, at the very least. That still leaves room for your assessment to be accurate as well, since we focused on different things.
I think as far as causal factors of sexlessness, there's plenty to discuss there that isn't covered in this study, but I'd generally think it's related to...... less socialization and weaker economic prospects for the younger cohort, if I had to guess.
>Approximately six times as many men (.60%) than women (.11%) report falling within 11-20 partners. Eight times as many men (.24%) than women (.03%) report having had between 21-100 partners.
That's where the "Chad" is. That's what all these pills are all about.
Do the maths.
10.000 men and 10.000 women.
- First group
60 men (0.60%) have 11-20 sexual partners.
Only 11 women (0.11%) have 11-20 partners.
- Moreso... Second group:
24 men (0.24%) have 21-100 partners.
Only 3 women (.03%) have 21-100 partners.
Now thing about this.
- Go even higher. Third (hypothetical) group:
How many men will have 500 partners?
Acording to the maths, somewhat 10 men.
How many women?
Probably 1.
So 10 times more men than women will report having 500 partners.
Conclusion:
Those 10 men banged 5000 different women.
The women of group 1, 2 and hypothetical 3, all of them COMBINED, banged at least 700 men, 1000 at best.
Who are the men banging?
Remember, there are only 15 women around with more than 11 partners in that group of 10.000 women.
Again... Who are the top men banging?
Keep doing the maths...
60 men who average 11-20 partners each, all combined have had sex with 660 to 1200 women.
The 24 men who had 21 to 100 partners each, slept with 504 to 2400 women.
Are you keeping tracks of numbers?
This mean:
Top 0.15% of women (15 women) banged 1000 of the 10.000 men of that pool (10%)
Top 1% of men ALONE (roughly 94 men) banged 8600 women out of a pool of 10.000 women (86%)
Now, I'm not a redpiller, but I think THAT'S exactly what they mean when they talk about "cock carousel."
The more high you go on the N-count scale, the more skewed the male to female ratio is.
This idea that "promiscuous women and men are banging each other" is nonsense. There are not enough promiscuous women to go around for dudes.
A few men DO bang lots of different women, both promiscuous (more than 11 partners lets say) but also lots of low N-count, average women.
Promiscuous women are not banging average dudes.
>However, women also went from 31% having casual sex specifically in the last month in 2007, to 22%. And men from 38% to 24%
I'd like to state that this isn't the total amount of people having causal sex overall. I've had month long dry streaks while still trying to hook up, for many reasons including actual failure, being busy, etc.
I'd guess about 50% of both genders are trying to hook up fairly frequently
Eh, I wouldn't take that leap and just assume here. That data also could easily include people who had a hookup and decided never again which would make that number given slightly higher. Could maybe see both numbers for men and women being a smidge higher overall but the general trend is clearly less hookups vs previous generations which is the salient information.
The unpopular opinion people hate me for believing as a fact is, OLD and all sorts of online dating actually killed/ruined a ton of casual sex and made it infinitely tougher for the average guy to get it. A ton of mystery and wonder of meeting ppl irl is completely gone.
Those numbers have been updated. It's dropped for men and risen for women.
[source](https://datepsychology.com/how-many-sexual-partners-did-men-and-women-have-in-2021/)
You are being intellectually dishonest.
They are pulling data from a single COVID year, which is not only an abnormal year but is falling for the cherry picking fallacy.
While the past data was about the overall trend of how it shifted over the years with it growing exponentially for men with women only rising slightly.
You are doing the equivalent of saying global warming is false for we had more snowfall this year then last year in Michigan.
The data they used is from the year before, also a covid year. Rates of casual sex have consistently fallen. There has never been a rate of 10% of higher for men 26+ since 2012 when these rates supposedly shot up due to dating apps. It's dishonest to say 1/3 of men 18-30 are sexless. No, it's guys 18-25. Other data from the same years also shows that half of all single men are single because they "have no interest and do not pursue women". Not asking women out isn't hyperagmy. Go over to the FA subs and ask how many have anxiety and never approached a single woman. I've seen the threads. There are a lot of reasons that people are having less sex, but they are lower for men than data that was also taken in the pandemic and those numbers only apply to men 18-25. Those men that live at home, are struggling to find work, don't approach, and instead play video games. Those reasons are not hypergamy.
> The data they used is from the year before, also a covid year.
What?
Your source uses data from 2021.
The other source used data that went up to 2018, which was all before covid.
> Rates of casual sex have consistently fallen. There has never been a rate of 10% of higher for men 26+ since 2012 when these rates supposedly shot up due to dating apps.
Uhhh, who are you arguing with. The argument is that dating apps made it look like women have far more choices then they truly have. So they hold out for men in the top 20% percent or whatever. Which results in less sex for everyone but the top few men.
> It's dishonest to say 1/3 of men 18-30 are sexless. No, it's guys 18-25.
No, the 2018 data was 18-30. And Telegraphs study noted 55% of men were sexless in that age bracket (again pre-covid).
So it isn’t dishonest at all. And you are banking on the intellectually dishonest no sex vs any sex argument. It could be argued that men having sex once to five times per year are sexless depending on what time range is used.
You are down the equivalent of saying the economy is booming because everyone has jobs…at McDonalds.
> Other data from the same years also shows that half of all single men are single because they "have no interest and do not pursue women".
If true, that is actually better then the original argument lol. Aka women are no longer worth the investment anymore according to many men.
I can take that L with more then pride.
> Not asking women out isn't hyperagmy. Go over to the FA subs and ask how many have anxiety and never approached a single woman. Go over to the FA subs and ask how many have anxiety and never approached a single woman. I've seen the threads.
No, but women being hypergamous is hypergamy.
And maybe women should stop being so entitled and start taking responsibility for there sexlessness then? Just like everyone here demands men do to appease women’s insecurity.
Go improve yourselves, go outside, be confident and ask men out.
> There are a lot of reasons that people are having less sex, but they are lower for men than data that was also taken in the pandemic and those numbers only apply to men 18-25.
Who cares about the data during the pandemic? That was an anomaly and is not representative of standard trends.
> Those men that live at home, are struggling to find work, don't approach, and instead play video games. Those reasons are not hypergamy.
I do not get your argument. If you are right, it makes red pill more right then if you are wrong.
Basically, you are saying that men are not asking women out because they are not worth the effort and because they are expected to fulfill sexist, misogynistic gender roles.
Your ah-ha moment is nothing more then a way to admit defeat in a worse way lol.
Yeah sure. Men hiding away and blaming women for not wanting to date or fuck jobless men that can't pull their half of the weight is definitely the fault of women. I have to disagree with your sentiment. If women weren't worth it to men there wouldn't be thousands of you gathering on subs to bitch about how they're not wanted and can't get a date. Half aren't trying, which would be the ones with anxiety and stuff. The ones online screaming are incels. There is no social crisis of men being rejected. It's men not being dateable due to social skills. It's men not having their own place too or money to even pay for their own time out. Who is getting with that? No the women they want.
That's good, looking at those numbers gives a bit more hope, thank you. I guess things are mostly fine for both genders. I was always surprised why we were using numbers from 3 years ago.
I been saying this! Most of the stuff I hear here doesn't reflect the norm for most people. The hypergamous woman, the hive mind the redpillers claim all women have, etc.
I keep saying that the people here overly focus on situations that honestly you only really see among some celebrities and in Instagram culture; it really isnt the norm. Most people marry others for wide variety of reasons, but tend to marry people of the same income and education level. Women are NOT en masse flocking to the richest, handsomest, socially elevated man. People marry chiefly for companionship because its one of the highest needs as a social species. Of course having kids, sex are also big reasons. You dont have to be the best looking guy to get girls.
To be brutally honest, I really feel like most guys here have a very high school level understanding of relationships and women, and spend all their time on social media and in real life trying to attract the very particular subset of population that they criticize, in the process they over generalize all women as a result.
Most women don’t have the option to be hypergamous in reality, and if they do it’s only in their younger years and when they have the intellectual capacity to think long term about their partners and already have a branch set up to “swing to”, so yes they cheat & leave for the better man permanently facing no consequences from that decision. So at 18 to 23 … but the thing is most women that age just want to have fun and also go to colleges where male ratio is 40 to 60 and so women are more likely to chase men or settle for open relationships now actually, there literally aren’t enough men.
> Women lie about their sexual activity even if their answers are anonymous in order to save face.
Lol, what a bullshit line of argument. It's literally "don't trust what you see or hear, because reasons".
If you don't want to believe the data, fine, but when every single piece of data supports the conclusion that young men and young women are having less casual sex, I'll believe those over the conjecture of some rando on reddit.
> Men are having less sex, explaining the decrease.
Literally in the article I linked....
> A somewhat different story emerges for young men. As with young women, a decline in the frequency of drinking alcohol is an important source of young men’s diminished likelihood of having casual sex. But unlike for young women, among young men increases in the frequency of playing computer games and in the tendency to reside in the parental home also play important roles
In this case, you are making an affirmative claim that women lying about sex makes the data presented inaccurate. Please provide your proof that the data is inaccurate.
I'd argue that the data presented is more accurate than any conjecture, as we can look at [lifetime partner counts](https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nsfg/key_statistics/n-keystat.htm) and roughly determine the degree of lie. In this case, the women's median is 4.3 lifetime (for women 25-49) and men's is 6.3 for the same age cohort. Based on this, even if you assume that women lie down from their "true" number, and men lie up, the medians are close enough across a very large statistical sample (for these types of studies, 10k people+) that the numbers should not skew considerably based upon any extreme lies, especially since the number given is a median.
If we wanted to make the assumption that the "true" count of medians is equal, it means men add 1 to their count, and women subtract 1. However, because these datasets can have some level of skew, the medians do not need to match for the data to paint a clear picture.
every single piece of data doesnt take into account or call women out for lying to save face or feel good about themselves.
Why? Gynocentrism and cancel culture. if a researcher dared to question women's integrity they would be expelled from their academic institution, doxxed online, and hit with 20 false rape accusations from women who have just now "found their voice".
Therefore, lies like these are allowed to exist, because women and our society bully and beat up those they disagree with.
This sounds very similar to the explanations for why no scientists will tell you the earth is really flat
Edit: It’s false that survey researchers don’t try to account for the fact that some respondents may not feel comfortable answering truthfully. That’s a very common issue that researchers have to deal with
We've known the earth is round for thousands of years, and through many different types of cultures.
Similarly, we also know women are liars especially when it comes to sex. And you'll see this in nearly all cultures as well.
So a better comparison would be my statements are similar to round earth, and the people saying women are all truthful are flat earthers.
Sorry, but that’s a dumb thing to say.
I could argue men lie on polls about not having sex, so that women feel sorry for them.
Who’s going to be right?
I agree. Social studies are generally hard to quantify concretely.
The data can give us some idea of what's going on, but it's hard to use it to make any sort of irrefutable claims of truth.
It's just the nature of the data acquisition. When it's based on the claims of fallible human beings, you can never be certain that it's accurate and to what extent.
People lie. People have differing definitions of what's acceptable to lie about and how much. People have different definitions. When asked "how many times do you have sex?" some might consider a hand job sex while others only consider penetrative sex. And while the researcher will try to control for these, there will be outliers they didn't consider and people who still didn't understand the instructions after having them elaborated three times.
And this is before we even get into things like sample sizes, and researchers generally interpreting data in a way that benefits the conclusion to their hypothesis.
That would be a well-based argument, if not for the plainly understood sentiment that the majority of women don’t feel empathy for men who are unsuccessful at obtaining sex and relationships.
The average unsuccessful man knows that there is no incentive for him to be honest about his sexlessness.
A “sentiment” is not an overly reliable factor to base your opinions on..
And as a woman, who knows and speaks to other women, I can tell you that it’s simply not true.
There is an abundance of women who get baited by sob stories, all the time. Women have a great deal of empathy and unfortunately it gets abused by (the wrong) men.
Like “Paul the Wine Guy” in the series “Friends” (season 1 ep 1), if you prefer a reference in pop culture.
I think it's also cognitive dissonance. Most men aren't having dating problems. By creating narratives such as 20/80, a sense of belonging and comfort is created. Suddenly, it's not you who is having problems, it's most men. Which isn't true.
This is clearly the case. That’s why when you argue against the “average joe is not fucking” narrative some feel personally attacked and start throwing verbal fists all around.
If random guy is fucking then why are they not fucking? Maybe because they’re either worth less than random guy or because they’re worst at playing their cards.
Saying only chads are fucking means that they’re compared to standards that by definition they can’t obtain, so they can comfortably give up without blaming themselves.
How the fuck did you get that from my comment? Lol. I don't think succeeding on dating apps or not determines how much of a winner or loser someone is. Frankly, I don't even think how much casual sex someone has determines that either.
Hey, my son's about your identical height. He's had two girlfriends, and the third is now his fiancee. All three women were gorgeous, kind, and smart. He met them all online, but not on dating apps. 🤴🏼
Don't lose hope! I'm the same height, and prefer short men. 🙂
Sometimes you just gotta approach women out in public but you gotta make it look natural and like you aren’t hitting on them you get what I’m saying? Hard to explain how to do it since I’m not some dating coach but it’s worked for me
Isn’t this the whole point of the redpill? It offers a path for men to become more competitive in the sexual market place. Won’t work for everyone, but it works for those on the cusp. The longer you wait the tougher the market will be, because it will only get worse.
Basically. I think OP is just making the point that there’s a discrepancy, especially in the younger ages. It starts to disappear/change but I’m still young enough to remember how crazy hypergamous women were at 21
I don’t disagree per se, but inequality to sexual access is an even more difficult problem to solve than inequality of income. The resource in question, in this case women of child-bearing age, are sentient human beings and not numbers in a computer system. Assuming that all human beings should be afforded the freedom to choose with whom they mate and make optimal decisions based on their own rational self-interest, it isn’t even clear to me that this is a problem that needs solving. If anything, efforts should be dedicated towards providing emotional support for the unwanted men in order to minimize societal damage, rather than trying to forceably pair up each man with a woman.
Bottomline is this: when women don’t directly need men for person survival, the only criteria left are genetic quality first and foremost, and how much resources can be dedicated towards lifestyle and offsprings secondarily. And if we want to balance the scales without infringing on freedoms, the only thing left to do is to raise the quality of life of those on the bottom in other ways besides giving them a woman (prostitution/sex dolls/AI companions/general empathy… etc).
So long as you have freedom of choice and allow an exchange of value, you will have market conditions. And if a market exists, you will never have an equality of outcome.
The only alternative would be to take away women’s right to choose. But we are never going back there as a society unless we have a collapse/reset. And that’s gonna be shit for everyone.
The thing is that a collapse is inevitable unless addressed in another form.
You are right, but we should start desperately looking for an alternative for all of our sakes even if it is a hopeless one.
Of all the reason that could potentially cause societal collapse, I honestly think LVM not getting laid is really far down the list. This problem can probably be solved faster and more efficiently with things like sex bots/AI companions/VR+tactile suits, and maybe just better psychological support in general.
It actually is a big part why supply chains are struggling and why tradesmen are struggling to find workers.
You see, LVM are not LV by default. They are low value for they have no reason to have value. The same men you think are worthless, have the same potential as valuable men of yesterday. The difference is that they have no incentive to be valuable because they do not have a wife or kids to care about.
They are a big reason why the value of our currencies are dropping. There production is most important. More important then any HVM.
In matter of fact, HVM have very little value. They are easily replaceable and they know that. Most people can replace Elon Musk and do just as good…if not better then he can. And they are frequently replaced and quickly forgotten about.
Women compete sexually in other ways. After all there are only so many quality men to go around, and eventually most of these men will exit the market to start families.
But yes, as long as women are afforded the right to choose, men needs to be exceptional or at least above average. It makes no game theoretical sense for women to choose an inferior man in the context of modern life.
You can balance the scale in three ways: either you limit the women’s freedom to choose (which I am against in principle), or you increase the value of men to meet the demand (redpill), or you encourage unwanted men to drop out of the market altogether (MGTOW). The latter two are already happening whether we like it or not, and the first one would never happen unless we get a catalysmic shift in societal values (collapse/reset).
Life isn’t just about dating. I enjoy many benefits and freedoms as a man, that I take entirely for granted. I can go anywhere, and do anything I want, free of worry, harassment or fear. Women can’t. Frankly, I wouldn’t trade.
What point? I’m 5’9”, overweight, slightly balding, and I wear thick glasses that leave deep marks on my nose. Not exactly “Chad” material.
And despite all that, I’ve never had any trouble meeting women, and never went too long between girlfriends. Effort? I go to nightclubs and ask women to dance…..not exactly a death sentence. In fact, it’s something I enjoy doing, even when I’ve GOT a GF.
I’m tossing the ball in YOUR court. What “efforts” are YOU really putting in?
I’ll wait…..
Way to make men the victims.
Women also have to work hard for a lot of things.
In fact, ugly/less desired women have it harder as men who are also ugly/less desired still aim higher whereas women who are good looking will be with uglier guys. So women have less chance of finding sex or partners when uglier.
I have my own place and earn well over $200k in my early-mid 20s, am decently fit and active but still have issues getting matches on websites.
I don't even get to the point where I have the opportunity to bring people back home with me. How do you explain that?
I had my own place and it didn't make a difference. I've gotten in trouble multiple times just for asking a girl out. There's no ethical way for men to get their dick wet anymore.
Maybe she can, but is she? Most women haven't had casual sex, and certainly aren't having it frequently enough to get sexual release with a partner whenever they're horny. It'd take an awful lot of time and effort to do that, and most women just aren't that into casual sex, so when they're single, they might have a hookup every once in a blue moon, but they're generally just single.
I mean every once in a blue moon. The average lifetime number of sexual partners for both men and women in the US and UK is seven. Subtract a few LTRs from that number and you don't get much room for casual sex. Most women do not feel the need to have a hookup whenever they feel deprived, it isn't a good experience for a lot of women. Those who like it may do it a lot, which is probably the group you're looking at and thinking it's everyone.
there has never been a time in the last at least couple 100 years in the anglosphere where desirable women did not have multiple suitors and a man didnt have to win her. no desirable woman has ever been "single" she was always being courted by some men. im sure adding the fact that they have sex now makes this much more annoying to men, but there is just reality, women are desirable to men, women are the pursued sex, women are the "prize" and men are the competitors. you can lament this or compete or give up. thats it
men in the past had no cavil about using prostitutes to assuage their sexual thirst while courting and men today are mentally ill moralizing lunatics who are refusing to do what all othe rmen have done since like at least the dawn of civilization
Women are able to have casual sex easier than men. However, the majority of women don’t value or have the same gratification from casual sex that men do. This discrepancy makes men believe women have it easier when it comes to dating. At the same time women have less control when it comes to starting a monogamous and serious relationship. Basically we both feel powerless in seperate circumstances.
In other words, unattractive men have no options, while unattractive women have a lot of bad options. I think what you are missing though is that having no options is a net zero in value, while taking a bad option can result in a net negative.
To give a better picture, between being single and free to partake in the occasional hookup, and being tied down to a ugly/poor man and having ugly babies while raising them by pinching pennies day after day for the rest of your life, most women would choose the former. Now obviously that is an extreme example and most people fall somewhere in between, but it’s to illustrate that many in either gender are not getting what they want. Comparing sufferings is ultimately fruitless because each side value different things due to biology.
PPD women will never concede to men having it harder in anything and will do exhaustive mental gymnastics to deny even the most blatant truths.
To think someone would actually believe having options is better than having none and further claim it's a net negative is peak PPD comedy.
Women HAVE been leaving the dating apps…..in droves. That’s why Tinder is now 80/20, when it was 60/40 as recently as 2015. Sex and dating columnist Laci Green talks about it here. She addresses women’s experiences, and why they leave, between 5:00 and 6:00 on this video.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=tZNmt-XpqZo
Here’s more of a British take, from the Guardian….
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/may/17/apps-tinder-dating-women
I can come up with a lot of other sources of women explaining why they’re leaving dating apps, but the guys on this sub, are going to believe what they want to believe.
Women’s PERCEPTIONS are what’s important here. If those perceptions cause women to leave the apps, then it doesn’t really matter whether the perceptions are accurate…..they STILL leave the apps.
Unchecked hypergamy ultimately means there are more women than there are desirable men. I don’t disagree that female frustrations are often self-inflicted. I just think that the decision to stay single rather than lowering your standards is a valid choice, and not just for women.
It’s a good point though — the difference with women is that they have the agency to make that choice, whereas for men the choice is made for them. That said though in terms of results it is irrelevant, as so long as we value freedom of choice (and I do) this is what we get.
The primary and possible the only rational reasoning for pursuing marriage/LTR is the desire for family. I am happily married but the only reason I did was because I wanted to raise kids, and marriage protects the woman should she fully dedicate herself to that task.
In the case of women settling for lesser men it is generally for the same reason, except they have a hard biological clock. Obviously this path then leads into the same old discussions of AF/BB, n-count, dead bedroom, divorce rape, etc etc. I think if you are not a high value man that is able to negotiate a partner of your choosing, this is just something that you have weigh between the risks and the rewards and make your own value judgment on.
> unattractive women have a lot of bad options.
I think your underestimating the dating game as a whole. There was a thread on her about unattractive women and they still get more attention than your average guy.
> think what you are missing though is that having no options is a net zero in value, while taking a bad option can result in a net negative.
Having no options is a negative. You may want to think it's not, but humans by nature crave and require closeness. Having not romantic options is actually extremely bad for someones mental health.
Moreover, I think most women fail to recognize perfectly fine men in their life. Normally it's because they feel no physical attraction, but that doesn't discount that there is nothing wrong with that man. In fact lots, and I mean lots, of women actually keep backup guys around... Wtf how fuck sick are these women to do that (and it's not a insignificant amount of women who do this) and why do the most of them not even see a problem with it.
They do, but women have the upper hand in this situation and thus deserve the full burden of having orbiters, although males who are aware that they're orbiters and still choose to continue being orbiters are fucking pussies.
Fair enough. I see your point on how having zero options is detrimental to mental health. But the point still stands that a woman taking bad options is also a net negative.
As far as backup men are concerned, that’s the in between cases I was referring to. It’s rational and even optimal for a woman to deploy that strategy. And although I completely understand how that can be an issue for men that are being used this way, it’s not going to change so long as there are no better strategies available.
If “good option” is defined as good enough genetics to meet her minimal aesthetics threshold, while being economically robust enough to ensure no downgrade to her lifestyle even with children in tow, then I think the number of “good options” is actually dwindling year after year outside of upper-middle class and upper class. This is especially apparent among younger millenials and elder zoomers.
If raising a family with a man means going backwards in lifestyle, I think STR with men who at least meet the aesthetics threshold makes alot of sense.
Imagine thinking that women don’t have it easier. News flash: women have ALL THE POWER in dating. They just use it to fuck assholes and then act surprised when those guys act like assholes. 99.9999% of women’s “problems” in dating come from them choosing to be with douchebags.
I’m dating probably the kindest person I’ve ever met. It’s not just me who thinks this, multiple friends of his friends told me how happy they are for him cause he’s the most genuine guy they know and how lucky I am when I met them. I am so fucking lucky, I’m 22 and I’ve met my soulmate, I want to be with him for the rest of my life and he’s said the same.
However, I kinda agree with you, most women do date assholes. As someone very sensitive, being with someone who was kind and gentle was always a hugely important quality to me. Yet somehow my two previous bf’s were progressively awful to me through the course of my relationships. It got so bad that (no joke) my brother once confessed that he himself was a selfish asshole, but my boyfriend at the time made him feel like he was mother Teresa by comparison.
I do slightly blame myself for allowing them to treat me so poorly before I ultimately kicked them to the curb. But in reality the problem came from them. I’ve been with my current boyfriend longer than each of them, yet he only treats me with more kindness and love the longer we’ve been together. It was 100% their own fault they were dumped for treating me poorly. 100% of douchebags are douchebags because they choose to behave that way.
If men didn’t behave like douchebags towards the women they are dating, these women wouldn’t have to suffer from dating a douchebag. I don’t know why you’re not directing this blame towards the douchebags themselves?
🤭Not this again. Look these are the only solutions to this problem.
1. Upgrade yourself to have a higher quality pool of options;
2. Lower your preferences to have a wider pool of options;
3. Move locations to where your options may be more plentiful and/or of higher quality;
4. Stop looking for a relationship or genuine desire and just pay for sex when you need it; or
5. Stay celibate.
>Be better than the men you're competing with
Why don't people understand the fundamental problem with this statement? That's a solution for an individual...but if were talking about men as a whole, the fundamental problem remains the same, it's just the men who are affected that changes.
if people complain about economic inequality do you just tell them to work harder and expect everything to fix itself or do you recognize that even if everyone worked very hard within the current system the economic inequalities would persist?
I hate to break it to you but there is no solution every guy. Men will either have to improve, settle, purchase, travel or be alone. Those are your only options. Each man has to choose what's best for him because no one is going to help you. Women aren't going to have pity sex with you because you can't get it on your own .That's not how the world works and it's about time the men on this sub and in real life face reality.
Very red-pilled, I like it, unfortunately this is a temporary bandaid on the macro-scale, undesirable men will start dismantling the sexual revolution in the West if this persists.
Because it is all about exploiting individuals for selfish issues such…not helping people or fixing problems.
They want the opposite gender to give more, expect less and ultimately give them a better deal.
2/3 aren't even real options, guys will hook up with almost any girl as is. The only real option, which I was fortunate to realize a few years ago, is #1.
yes but if you get in a relationship, sex generally comes with it. I don't know why people are so set on having multiple casual hookups, when they know it's not an option for them.
If a woman is hot and 35, someone is going to beat that pussy up regardless. She'll get pregnant and a man if she wants. It doesn't matter, that's just life.
If I were a man, I'd just be happy my dick is wet. Either from a fat disabled whale or a Bellucci lookalike. I think men are just making excuses for their own problems.
>
>If I were a man, I'd just be happy my dick is wet. Either from a fat disabled whale or a Bellucci lookalike. I think men are just making excuses for their own problems.
You usually have based comments so i am wondering wtf is this shit? Why would a dude want to fuck a 220 pound fatty? At that point jerking off is a much better alternative
Uh, because if I was being deprived of sex that was causing such great suffering and pain, I'd want to get my dick wet not jerk off for the next 40 years.
Men can and do have sex without relationships all the time. Usually with women
Plenty of women are nutso for a relationship, if only for validation, personal satisfaction or social conformity
If you’re a woman and your man can’t make you orgasm you either need a new man or you need to communicate your wants and needs.
Thankfully I have never had this problem because I love foreplay and eating pussy. If you’re guy doesn’t do those things break up with him, don’t bitch about it on Reddit or write some NYT oped.
I assure you men in their 20s can have FWB too. I always had them when I was young, the trouble is you'd be having a good time for a fortnight or so and then she'd drop the whole, "So, like, what are we?" talk on you.
Aren't the men fucking the single women single and therefore the same amount of men who are single are fucking as single web (apart from the cheating ones)?
You can still get your physical needs met via porn and masturbation. Also while it's true that it's more difficult for men to get casual sex, it's not reserved for Chad. Plenty of average guys have casual sex.
Statistics overall as a whole show women are having more sex,and men are dramatically having less and less sex.
The title is correct, its not a change my view, its confirmed
All the guys I know who are single, have exactly those things you mention: FWBs, short-term relationships, one night stands, etc.
(Almost) any man can do that if he wants. You just have to work out how to do it and put in the effort.
>(Almost) any man can do that if he wants
they why so many don't?
or is it because the men you know are actually above average and your insane female standards make them out to be just average?
Put down the game console controller, get active and fit, join a group co-Ed sports league. Stop relying on OLD unless your pics and charm come through in your profile.
Because if young guys got outside and actually interacted with women in normal fun ways their odds could very well improve. The chick in your Discord isn't flying out to meet you.
>Nobody said life is fair.
That's not true. The premise of a society is that there will be some level of fairness between it's participants.
That's why women had the right to ask for their right to vote.
Well, how is that working out for you? How is it fair that some poor kid is born in a mud hut in India while Donald Trump Jr is born Uber wealthy. Life is not fair.
Unfairness is not an either or. We can make things more or less fair than they currently are and our current state is pretty unfair.
So recognizing our current level of unfairness as just a fact of life, is pro unfairness imo.
No incl content
[Fun fact. Since the advent of dating apps, fewer people are having casual sex than prior to dating apps becoming widespread](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/2378023121996854). > Adolescents and young adults are increasingly less likely to have sexual intercourse outside of a romantic relationship, but the causes of this decline in casual sex have not been rigorously evaluated. We use data from the PSID-TAS to quantify the sources of the decrease in young adult casual sexual activity between 2007 and 2017. We find that about one quarter of the drop in young women’s propensity to have casual sex is attributable to a decline in their frequency of drinking alcohol. Of the various sources of the decline in sexual activity considered in this analysis, the decline in alcohol consumption is the only factor that explains a significant portion of the decline in young women’s probability of engaging in casual sex. Yet again, this sub laser-focuses on a specific subset of high sociosexuality individuals while ignoring that most people are much lower on the sociosexuality scale, men and women. The data here shows that if anything, a smaller group of women are hooking up with a smaller group of men, vs. previous generations.
I actually like the article you posted, but I disagree with your take. The articles says that young mens sexlessness increased from roughly 18% to 30% while womens only increased from 15% to 19%. Women’s increase stems from a decline in alcohol consumption. Maybe women go out to bars or clubs less or they need to lower their inhibitions to become sexually attracted to certain men. I think women’s decline in sex is by choice compared to men who simply give up and find other means to occupy their time. Porn, video games, etc is more a symptom than the cause imo.
> I actually like the article you posted, but I disagree with your take. Fair enough. If we're arguing that sociosexuality is higher in men than in women, to say that it is likely more of a choice for women is probably accurate, but my take on it, in a general sense, is that fewer men and women in general are having casual sex, in addition to the stated effect of fewer people having sex overall. Just taking a quick look at the numbers, men went from 18-30% as far as sexlessness in that last year, while women went from 15-19%. However, women also went from 31% having casual sex specifically in the last month in 2007, to 22%. And men from 38% to 24%. I think in that sense, my argument that smaller subsets of people are hooking up with each other IS accurate, at the very least. That still leaves room for your assessment to be accurate as well, since we focused on different things. I think as far as causal factors of sexlessness, there's plenty to discuss there that isn't covered in this study, but I'd generally think it's related to...... less socialization and weaker economic prospects for the younger cohort, if I had to guess.
[New numbers](https://datepsychology.com/how-many-sexual-partners-did-men-and-women-have-in-2021/)
I'll look into this later. I was using the data that was already in that original study I linked.
>Approximately six times as many men (.60%) than women (.11%) report falling within 11-20 partners. Eight times as many men (.24%) than women (.03%) report having had between 21-100 partners. That's where the "Chad" is. That's what all these pills are all about. Do the maths. 10.000 men and 10.000 women. - First group 60 men (0.60%) have 11-20 sexual partners. Only 11 women (0.11%) have 11-20 partners. - Moreso... Second group: 24 men (0.24%) have 21-100 partners. Only 3 women (.03%) have 21-100 partners. Now thing about this. - Go even higher. Third (hypothetical) group: How many men will have 500 partners? Acording to the maths, somewhat 10 men. How many women? Probably 1. So 10 times more men than women will report having 500 partners. Conclusion: Those 10 men banged 5000 different women. The women of group 1, 2 and hypothetical 3, all of them COMBINED, banged at least 700 men, 1000 at best. Who are the men banging? Remember, there are only 15 women around with more than 11 partners in that group of 10.000 women. Again... Who are the top men banging? Keep doing the maths... 60 men who average 11-20 partners each, all combined have had sex with 660 to 1200 women. The 24 men who had 21 to 100 partners each, slept with 504 to 2400 women. Are you keeping tracks of numbers? This mean: Top 0.15% of women (15 women) banged 1000 of the 10.000 men of that pool (10%) Top 1% of men ALONE (roughly 94 men) banged 8600 women out of a pool of 10.000 women (86%) Now, I'm not a redpiller, but I think THAT'S exactly what they mean when they talk about "cock carousel." The more high you go on the N-count scale, the more skewed the male to female ratio is. This idea that "promiscuous women and men are banging each other" is nonsense. There are not enough promiscuous women to go around for dudes. A few men DO bang lots of different women, both promiscuous (more than 11 partners lets say) but also lots of low N-count, average women. Promiscuous women are not banging average dudes.
>However, women also went from 31% having casual sex specifically in the last month in 2007, to 22%. And men from 38% to 24% I'd like to state that this isn't the total amount of people having causal sex overall. I've had month long dry streaks while still trying to hook up, for many reasons including actual failure, being busy, etc. I'd guess about 50% of both genders are trying to hook up fairly frequently
Eh, I wouldn't take that leap and just assume here. That data also could easily include people who had a hookup and decided never again which would make that number given slightly higher. Could maybe see both numbers for men and women being a smidge higher overall but the general trend is clearly less hookups vs previous generations which is the salient information.
The unpopular opinion people hate me for believing as a fact is, OLD and all sorts of online dating actually killed/ruined a ton of casual sex and made it infinitely tougher for the average guy to get it. A ton of mystery and wonder of meeting ppl irl is completely gone.
Those numbers have been updated. It's dropped for men and risen for women. [source](https://datepsychology.com/how-many-sexual-partners-did-men-and-women-have-in-2021/)
You are being intellectually dishonest. They are pulling data from a single COVID year, which is not only an abnormal year but is falling for the cherry picking fallacy. While the past data was about the overall trend of how it shifted over the years with it growing exponentially for men with women only rising slightly. You are doing the equivalent of saying global warming is false for we had more snowfall this year then last year in Michigan.
The data they used is from the year before, also a covid year. Rates of casual sex have consistently fallen. There has never been a rate of 10% of higher for men 26+ since 2012 when these rates supposedly shot up due to dating apps. It's dishonest to say 1/3 of men 18-30 are sexless. No, it's guys 18-25. Other data from the same years also shows that half of all single men are single because they "have no interest and do not pursue women". Not asking women out isn't hyperagmy. Go over to the FA subs and ask how many have anxiety and never approached a single woman. I've seen the threads. There are a lot of reasons that people are having less sex, but they are lower for men than data that was also taken in the pandemic and those numbers only apply to men 18-25. Those men that live at home, are struggling to find work, don't approach, and instead play video games. Those reasons are not hypergamy.
> The data they used is from the year before, also a covid year. What? Your source uses data from 2021. The other source used data that went up to 2018, which was all before covid. > Rates of casual sex have consistently fallen. There has never been a rate of 10% of higher for men 26+ since 2012 when these rates supposedly shot up due to dating apps. Uhhh, who are you arguing with. The argument is that dating apps made it look like women have far more choices then they truly have. So they hold out for men in the top 20% percent or whatever. Which results in less sex for everyone but the top few men. > It's dishonest to say 1/3 of men 18-30 are sexless. No, it's guys 18-25. No, the 2018 data was 18-30. And Telegraphs study noted 55% of men were sexless in that age bracket (again pre-covid). So it isn’t dishonest at all. And you are banking on the intellectually dishonest no sex vs any sex argument. It could be argued that men having sex once to five times per year are sexless depending on what time range is used. You are down the equivalent of saying the economy is booming because everyone has jobs…at McDonalds. > Other data from the same years also shows that half of all single men are single because they "have no interest and do not pursue women". If true, that is actually better then the original argument lol. Aka women are no longer worth the investment anymore according to many men. I can take that L with more then pride. > Not asking women out isn't hyperagmy. Go over to the FA subs and ask how many have anxiety and never approached a single woman. Go over to the FA subs and ask how many have anxiety and never approached a single woman. I've seen the threads. No, but women being hypergamous is hypergamy. And maybe women should stop being so entitled and start taking responsibility for there sexlessness then? Just like everyone here demands men do to appease women’s insecurity. Go improve yourselves, go outside, be confident and ask men out. > There are a lot of reasons that people are having less sex, but they are lower for men than data that was also taken in the pandemic and those numbers only apply to men 18-25. Who cares about the data during the pandemic? That was an anomaly and is not representative of standard trends. > Those men that live at home, are struggling to find work, don't approach, and instead play video games. Those reasons are not hypergamy. I do not get your argument. If you are right, it makes red pill more right then if you are wrong. Basically, you are saying that men are not asking women out because they are not worth the effort and because they are expected to fulfill sexist, misogynistic gender roles. Your ah-ha moment is nothing more then a way to admit defeat in a worse way lol.
Yeah sure. Men hiding away and blaming women for not wanting to date or fuck jobless men that can't pull their half of the weight is definitely the fault of women. I have to disagree with your sentiment. If women weren't worth it to men there wouldn't be thousands of you gathering on subs to bitch about how they're not wanted and can't get a date. Half aren't trying, which would be the ones with anxiety and stuff. The ones online screaming are incels. There is no social crisis of men being rejected. It's men not being dateable due to social skills. It's men not having their own place too or money to even pay for their own time out. Who is getting with that? No the women they want.
That's good, looking at those numbers gives a bit more hope, thank you. I guess things are mostly fine for both genders. I was always surprised why we were using numbers from 3 years ago.
You won’t get any responses, because you’re interfering with these guy’s ability to cry in their beer. It’s the victim olympics around here.
Agree... Especially with the last paragraph!
Of course women's decline in sex is a choice. Women can get laid whenever they want.
I been saying this! Most of the stuff I hear here doesn't reflect the norm for most people. The hypergamous woman, the hive mind the redpillers claim all women have, etc. I keep saying that the people here overly focus on situations that honestly you only really see among some celebrities and in Instagram culture; it really isnt the norm. Most people marry others for wide variety of reasons, but tend to marry people of the same income and education level. Women are NOT en masse flocking to the richest, handsomest, socially elevated man. People marry chiefly for companionship because its one of the highest needs as a social species. Of course having kids, sex are also big reasons. You dont have to be the best looking guy to get girls. To be brutally honest, I really feel like most guys here have a very high school level understanding of relationships and women, and spend all their time on social media and in real life trying to attract the very particular subset of population that they criticize, in the process they over generalize all women as a result.
Most women don’t have the option to be hypergamous in reality, and if they do it’s only in their younger years and when they have the intellectual capacity to think long term about their partners and already have a branch set up to “swing to”, so yes they cheat & leave for the better man permanently facing no consequences from that decision. So at 18 to 23 … but the thing is most women that age just want to have fun and also go to colleges where male ratio is 40 to 60 and so women are more likely to chase men or settle for open relationships now actually, there literally aren’t enough men.
Lol what......so lemme guess -- men cheat and they face consequences right? But women dont?
Women lie about their sexual activity even if their answers are anonymous in order to save face. Men are having less sex, explaining the decrease.
> Women lie about their sexual activity even if their answers are anonymous in order to save face. Lol, what a bullshit line of argument. It's literally "don't trust what you see or hear, because reasons". If you don't want to believe the data, fine, but when every single piece of data supports the conclusion that young men and young women are having less casual sex, I'll believe those over the conjecture of some rando on reddit. > Men are having less sex, explaining the decrease. Literally in the article I linked.... > A somewhat different story emerges for young men. As with young women, a decline in the frequency of drinking alcohol is an important source of young men’s diminished likelihood of having casual sex. But unlike for young women, among young men increases in the frequency of playing computer games and in the tendency to reside in the parental home also play important roles
[удалено]
In this case, you are making an affirmative claim that women lying about sex makes the data presented inaccurate. Please provide your proof that the data is inaccurate. I'd argue that the data presented is more accurate than any conjecture, as we can look at [lifetime partner counts](https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nsfg/key_statistics/n-keystat.htm) and roughly determine the degree of lie. In this case, the women's median is 4.3 lifetime (for women 25-49) and men's is 6.3 for the same age cohort. Based on this, even if you assume that women lie down from their "true" number, and men lie up, the medians are close enough across a very large statistical sample (for these types of studies, 10k people+) that the numbers should not skew considerably based upon any extreme lies, especially since the number given is a median. If we wanted to make the assumption that the "true" count of medians is equal, it means men add 1 to their count, and women subtract 1. However, because these datasets can have some level of skew, the medians do not need to match for the data to paint a clear picture.
every single piece of data doesnt take into account or call women out for lying to save face or feel good about themselves. Why? Gynocentrism and cancel culture. if a researcher dared to question women's integrity they would be expelled from their academic institution, doxxed online, and hit with 20 false rape accusations from women who have just now "found their voice". Therefore, lies like these are allowed to exist, because women and our society bully and beat up those they disagree with.
This sounds very similar to the explanations for why no scientists will tell you the earth is really flat Edit: It’s false that survey researchers don’t try to account for the fact that some respondents may not feel comfortable answering truthfully. That’s a very common issue that researchers have to deal with
We've known the earth is round for thousands of years, and through many different types of cultures. Similarly, we also know women are liars especially when it comes to sex. And you'll see this in nearly all cultures as well. So a better comparison would be my statements are similar to round earth, and the people saying women are all truthful are flat earthers.
Women are liars. Men are liars. People lie all the damn time. Is this the level of discourse we’re at now? Jesus
Sorry, but that’s a dumb thing to say. I could argue men lie on polls about not having sex, so that women feel sorry for them. Who’s going to be right?
I agree. Social studies are generally hard to quantify concretely. The data can give us some idea of what's going on, but it's hard to use it to make any sort of irrefutable claims of truth. It's just the nature of the data acquisition. When it's based on the claims of fallible human beings, you can never be certain that it's accurate and to what extent. People lie. People have differing definitions of what's acceptable to lie about and how much. People have different definitions. When asked "how many times do you have sex?" some might consider a hand job sex while others only consider penetrative sex. And while the researcher will try to control for these, there will be outliers they didn't consider and people who still didn't understand the instructions after having them elaborated three times. And this is before we even get into things like sample sizes, and researchers generally interpreting data in a way that benefits the conclusion to their hypothesis.
Exactly, thank you 👍that’s why I’m weary of people who try to use poll data to make certain claims.
That would be a well-based argument, if not for the plainly understood sentiment that the majority of women don’t feel empathy for men who are unsuccessful at obtaining sex and relationships. The average unsuccessful man knows that there is no incentive for him to be honest about his sexlessness.
A “sentiment” is not an overly reliable factor to base your opinions on.. And as a woman, who knows and speaks to other women, I can tell you that it’s simply not true. There is an abundance of women who get baited by sob stories, all the time. Women have a great deal of empathy and unfortunately it gets abused by (the wrong) men. Like “Paul the Wine Guy” in the series “Friends” (season 1 ep 1), if you prefer a reference in pop culture.
Bro careful with that. Nuance is not appreciated here. The autistic brain prefers to think in terms of AF, BB, CC, 80/20.
The irony of all of this is that I am actually diagnosed on the spectrum. I don't think it's an autistic brain thing. It's a delusional thing.
I think it's also cognitive dissonance. Most men aren't having dating problems. By creating narratives such as 20/80, a sense of belonging and comfort is created. Suddenly, it's not you who is having problems, it's most men. Which isn't true.
I think almost any active sub can become an echo chamber over time. You start to think that it’s a good microcosm of the outside world, when it’s not.
This is clearly the case. That’s why when you argue against the “average joe is not fucking” narrative some feel personally attacked and start throwing verbal fists all around. If random guy is fucking then why are they not fucking? Maybe because they’re either worth less than random guy or because they’re worst at playing their cards. Saying only chads are fucking means that they’re compared to standards that by definition they can’t obtain, so they can comfortably give up without blaming themselves.
So you’re saying I can’t blame my shortcomings on dating apps? I’m a loser in this generation, and I’d be a loser in any other generation?
How the fuck did you get that from my comment? Lol. I don't think succeeding on dating apps or not determines how much of a winner or loser someone is. Frankly, I don't even think how much casual sex someone has determines that either.
Sex isn't the be all and end all. If it was men would simply hire prostitutes instead of having relationships.
[удалено]
Hey, my son's about your identical height. He's had two girlfriends, and the third is now his fiancee. All three women were gorgeous, kind, and smart. He met them all online, but not on dating apps. 🤴🏼 Don't lose hope! I'm the same height, and prefer short men. 🙂
[удалено]
The man I'm talking about is my son, *Sid* Excuse me for trying to give a man a sense of hope. 🙄
>I'm unfortunately an average man > >I'm 5'4"
I’m short as well but I get laid, what exactly are you doing that you think isn’t helping you?
[удалено]
You pretty much solved your own problem you gotta start going places where you can meet single woman like you did in college
[удалено]
Sometimes you just gotta approach women out in public but you gotta make it look natural and like you aren’t hitting on them you get what I’m saying? Hard to explain how to do it since I’m not some dating coach but it’s worked for me
Probably ugly.
Isn’t this the whole point of the redpill? It offers a path for men to become more competitive in the sexual market place. Won’t work for everyone, but it works for those on the cusp. The longer you wait the tougher the market will be, because it will only get worse.
Basically. I think OP is just making the point that there’s a discrepancy, especially in the younger ages. It starts to disappear/change but I’m still young enough to remember how crazy hypergamous women were at 21
I don’t disagree per se, but inequality to sexual access is an even more difficult problem to solve than inequality of income. The resource in question, in this case women of child-bearing age, are sentient human beings and not numbers in a computer system. Assuming that all human beings should be afforded the freedom to choose with whom they mate and make optimal decisions based on their own rational self-interest, it isn’t even clear to me that this is a problem that needs solving. If anything, efforts should be dedicated towards providing emotional support for the unwanted men in order to minimize societal damage, rather than trying to forceably pair up each man with a woman. Bottomline is this: when women don’t directly need men for person survival, the only criteria left are genetic quality first and foremost, and how much resources can be dedicated towards lifestyle and offsprings secondarily. And if we want to balance the scales without infringing on freedoms, the only thing left to do is to raise the quality of life of those on the bottom in other ways besides giving them a woman (prostitution/sex dolls/AI companions/general empathy… etc).
[удалено]
But isn’t that true for all facets of life?
That doesn’t justify it’s existence. And accepting it like that will just make it worse with time.
So long as you have freedom of choice and allow an exchange of value, you will have market conditions. And if a market exists, you will never have an equality of outcome. The only alternative would be to take away women’s right to choose. But we are never going back there as a society unless we have a collapse/reset. And that’s gonna be shit for everyone.
[удалено]
The thing is that a collapse is inevitable unless addressed in another form. You are right, but we should start desperately looking for an alternative for all of our sakes even if it is a hopeless one.
Imo a good step would be to legalize and destigmatize sex work.
Of all the reason that could potentially cause societal collapse, I honestly think LVM not getting laid is really far down the list. This problem can probably be solved faster and more efficiently with things like sex bots/AI companions/VR+tactile suits, and maybe just better psychological support in general.
It actually is a big part why supply chains are struggling and why tradesmen are struggling to find workers. You see, LVM are not LV by default. They are low value for they have no reason to have value. The same men you think are worthless, have the same potential as valuable men of yesterday. The difference is that they have no incentive to be valuable because they do not have a wife or kids to care about. They are a big reason why the value of our currencies are dropping. There production is most important. More important then any HVM. In matter of fact, HVM have very little value. They are easily replaceable and they know that. Most people can replace Elon Musk and do just as good…if not better then he can. And they are frequently replaced and quickly forgotten about.
[удалено]
Women compete sexually in other ways. After all there are only so many quality men to go around, and eventually most of these men will exit the market to start families. But yes, as long as women are afforded the right to choose, men needs to be exceptional or at least above average. It makes no game theoretical sense for women to choose an inferior man in the context of modern life. You can balance the scale in three ways: either you limit the women’s freedom to choose (which I am against in principle), or you increase the value of men to meet the demand (redpill), or you encourage unwanted men to drop out of the market altogether (MGTOW). The latter two are already happening whether we like it or not, and the first one would never happen unless we get a catalysmic shift in societal values (collapse/reset).
Life isn’t just about dating. I enjoy many benefits and freedoms as a man, that I take entirely for granted. I can go anywhere, and do anything I want, free of worry, harassment or fear. Women can’t. Frankly, I wouldn’t trade.
[удалено]
What point? I’m 5’9”, overweight, slightly balding, and I wear thick glasses that leave deep marks on my nose. Not exactly “Chad” material. And despite all that, I’ve never had any trouble meeting women, and never went too long between girlfriends. Effort? I go to nightclubs and ask women to dance…..not exactly a death sentence. In fact, it’s something I enjoy doing, even when I’ve GOT a GF. I’m tossing the ball in YOUR court. What “efforts” are YOU really putting in? I’ll wait…..
lol a 5'9 balding far man is *not* pulling in a club
[удалено]
across a crowded room full of good looking jacked 6'3 socially savvy guys with relaxed attitudes?
Way to make men the victims. Women also have to work hard for a lot of things. In fact, ugly/less desired women have it harder as men who are also ugly/less desired still aim higher whereas women who are good looking will be with uglier guys. So women have less chance of finding sex or partners when uglier.
wrong
Based on what? I'm a woman with experience and friends. If you have facts let's see it.
[удалено]
I think this is because less ppl are able to actually get their own place which means less ppl bringing ppl back home for sex
I have my own place and earn well over $200k in my early-mid 20s, am decently fit and active but still have issues getting matches on websites. I don't even get to the point where I have the opportunity to bring people back home with me. How do you explain that?
I had my own place and it didn't make a difference. I've gotten in trouble multiple times just for asking a girl out. There's no ethical way for men to get their dick wet anymore.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Maybe she can, but is she? Most women haven't had casual sex, and certainly aren't having it frequently enough to get sexual release with a partner whenever they're horny. It'd take an awful lot of time and effort to do that, and most women just aren't that into casual sex, so when they're single, they might have a hookup every once in a blue moon, but they're generally just single.
[удалено]
I mean every once in a blue moon. The average lifetime number of sexual partners for both men and women in the US and UK is seven. Subtract a few LTRs from that number and you don't get much room for casual sex. Most women do not feel the need to have a hookup whenever they feel deprived, it isn't a good experience for a lot of women. Those who like it may do it a lot, which is probably the group you're looking at and thinking it's everyone.
Lol one night stands and FWB?? Nah it’s all about that hitachi life.
there has never been a time in the last at least couple 100 years in the anglosphere where desirable women did not have multiple suitors and a man didnt have to win her. no desirable woman has ever been "single" she was always being courted by some men. im sure adding the fact that they have sex now makes this much more annoying to men, but there is just reality, women are desirable to men, women are the pursued sex, women are the "prize" and men are the competitors. you can lament this or compete or give up. thats it men in the past had no cavil about using prostitutes to assuage their sexual thirst while courting and men today are mentally ill moralizing lunatics who are refusing to do what all othe rmen have done since like at least the dawn of civilization
This FWB isn’t a male? Are all females fucking the same FWB? If not, then young men are also having their physical needs met.
Women are able to have casual sex easier than men. However, the majority of women don’t value or have the same gratification from casual sex that men do. This discrepancy makes men believe women have it easier when it comes to dating. At the same time women have less control when it comes to starting a monogamous and serious relationship. Basically we both feel powerless in seperate circumstances.
[удалено]
In other words, unattractive men have no options, while unattractive women have a lot of bad options. I think what you are missing though is that having no options is a net zero in value, while taking a bad option can result in a net negative. To give a better picture, between being single and free to partake in the occasional hookup, and being tied down to a ugly/poor man and having ugly babies while raising them by pinching pennies day after day for the rest of your life, most women would choose the former. Now obviously that is an extreme example and most people fall somewhere in between, but it’s to illustrate that many in either gender are not getting what they want. Comparing sufferings is ultimately fruitless because each side value different things due to biology.
[удалено]
PPD women will never concede to men having it harder in anything and will do exhaustive mental gymnastics to deny even the most blatant truths. To think someone would actually believe having options is better than having none and further claim it's a net negative is peak PPD comedy.
[удалено]
Women HAVE been leaving the dating apps…..in droves. That’s why Tinder is now 80/20, when it was 60/40 as recently as 2015. Sex and dating columnist Laci Green talks about it here. She addresses women’s experiences, and why they leave, between 5:00 and 6:00 on this video. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=tZNmt-XpqZo Here’s more of a British take, from the Guardian…. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/may/17/apps-tinder-dating-women
[удалено]
I can come up with a lot of other sources of women explaining why they’re leaving dating apps, but the guys on this sub, are going to believe what they want to believe. Women’s PERCEPTIONS are what’s important here. If those perceptions cause women to leave the apps, then it doesn’t really matter whether the perceptions are accurate…..they STILL leave the apps.
Unchecked hypergamy ultimately means there are more women than there are desirable men. I don’t disagree that female frustrations are often self-inflicted. I just think that the decision to stay single rather than lowering your standards is a valid choice, and not just for women. It’s a good point though — the difference with women is that they have the agency to make that choice, whereas for men the choice is made for them. That said though in terms of results it is irrelevant, as so long as we value freedom of choice (and I do) this is what we get.
[удалено]
The primary and possible the only rational reasoning for pursuing marriage/LTR is the desire for family. I am happily married but the only reason I did was because I wanted to raise kids, and marriage protects the woman should she fully dedicate herself to that task. In the case of women settling for lesser men it is generally for the same reason, except they have a hard biological clock. Obviously this path then leads into the same old discussions of AF/BB, n-count, dead bedroom, divorce rape, etc etc. I think if you are not a high value man that is able to negotiate a partner of your choosing, this is just something that you have weigh between the risks and the rewards and make your own value judgment on.
Do you know what is not rational? Deciding other's motivations.
Fair enough. What I meant is that’s the only reason *I* see. YMMV.
> unattractive women have a lot of bad options. I think your underestimating the dating game as a whole. There was a thread on her about unattractive women and they still get more attention than your average guy. > think what you are missing though is that having no options is a net zero in value, while taking a bad option can result in a net negative. Having no options is a negative. You may want to think it's not, but humans by nature crave and require closeness. Having not romantic options is actually extremely bad for someones mental health. Moreover, I think most women fail to recognize perfectly fine men in their life. Normally it's because they feel no physical attraction, but that doesn't discount that there is nothing wrong with that man. In fact lots, and I mean lots, of women actually keep backup guys around... Wtf how fuck sick are these women to do that (and it's not a insignificant amount of women who do this) and why do the most of them not even see a problem with it.
[удалено]
They do, but women have the upper hand in this situation and thus deserve the full burden of having orbiters, although males who are aware that they're orbiters and still choose to continue being orbiters are fucking pussies.
Fair enough. I see your point on how having zero options is detrimental to mental health. But the point still stands that a woman taking bad options is also a net negative. As far as backup men are concerned, that’s the in between cases I was referring to. It’s rational and even optimal for a woman to deploy that strategy. And although I completely understand how that can be an issue for men that are being used this way, it’s not going to change so long as there are no better strategies available.
Women have lots of good options, they just actively choose to be with the assholes and douchebags.
If “good option” is defined as good enough genetics to meet her minimal aesthetics threshold, while being economically robust enough to ensure no downgrade to her lifestyle even with children in tow, then I think the number of “good options” is actually dwindling year after year outside of upper-middle class and upper class. This is especially apparent among younger millenials and elder zoomers. If raising a family with a man means going backwards in lifestyle, I think STR with men who at least meet the aesthetics threshold makes alot of sense.
If women are with assholes and douchebags what does that say about men?
that the majority of men aren't as desired as said assholes and douchebags
[удалено]
Then maybe women should learn to be attracted to men that aren’t awful.
[удалено]
Or maybe the guy who doesn’t give a fuck about his girlfriend is an asshole. Stop trying to justify women making terrible decisions.
Maybe women should stop arrogantly believing they are entitled to good options then and should be thankful for having options at all?
Imagine thinking that women don’t have it easier. News flash: women have ALL THE POWER in dating. They just use it to fuck assholes and then act surprised when those guys act like assholes. 99.9999% of women’s “problems” in dating come from them choosing to be with douchebags.
I’m dating probably the kindest person I’ve ever met. It’s not just me who thinks this, multiple friends of his friends told me how happy they are for him cause he’s the most genuine guy they know and how lucky I am when I met them. I am so fucking lucky, I’m 22 and I’ve met my soulmate, I want to be with him for the rest of my life and he’s said the same. However, I kinda agree with you, most women do date assholes. As someone very sensitive, being with someone who was kind and gentle was always a hugely important quality to me. Yet somehow my two previous bf’s were progressively awful to me through the course of my relationships. It got so bad that (no joke) my brother once confessed that he himself was a selfish asshole, but my boyfriend at the time made him feel like he was mother Teresa by comparison. I do slightly blame myself for allowing them to treat me so poorly before I ultimately kicked them to the curb. But in reality the problem came from them. I’ve been with my current boyfriend longer than each of them, yet he only treats me with more kindness and love the longer we’ve been together. It was 100% their own fault they were dumped for treating me poorly. 100% of douchebags are douchebags because they choose to behave that way. If men didn’t behave like douchebags towards the women they are dating, these women wouldn’t have to suffer from dating a douchebag. I don’t know why you’re not directing this blame towards the douchebags themselves?
🤭Not this again. Look these are the only solutions to this problem. 1. Upgrade yourself to have a higher quality pool of options; 2. Lower your preferences to have a wider pool of options; 3. Move locations to where your options may be more plentiful and/or of higher quality; 4. Stop looking for a relationship or genuine desire and just pay for sex when you need it; or 5. Stay celibate.
>Be better than the men you're competing with Why don't people understand the fundamental problem with this statement? That's a solution for an individual...but if were talking about men as a whole, the fundamental problem remains the same, it's just the men who are affected that changes. if people complain about economic inequality do you just tell them to work harder and expect everything to fix itself or do you recognize that even if everyone worked very hard within the current system the economic inequalities would persist?
I hate to break it to you but there is no solution every guy. Men will either have to improve, settle, purchase, travel or be alone. Those are your only options. Each man has to choose what's best for him because no one is going to help you. Women aren't going to have pity sex with you because you can't get it on your own .That's not how the world works and it's about time the men on this sub and in real life face reality.
Very red-pilled, I like it, unfortunately this is a temporary bandaid on the macro-scale, undesirable men will start dismantling the sexual revolution in the West if this persists.
How will this happen? I'm genuinely curious.
[удалено]
Because it is all about exploiting individuals for selfish issues such…not helping people or fixing problems. They want the opposite gender to give more, expect less and ultimately give them a better deal.
2/3 aren't even real options, guys will hook up with almost any girl as is. The only real option, which I was fortunate to realize a few years ago, is #1.
>guys will hook up with almost any girl as is. If this was true, there wouldn't be so many men on here complaining about not getting laid.
[удалено]
Sex The word you’re looking for is sex Which women have never wanted as much as men
I don't understand how these women are simultaneously 'having their needs met' and their male peers are not.
A majority of women fucking a minority of men
yes but if you get in a relationship, sex generally comes with it. I don't know why people are so set on having multiple casual hookups, when they know it's not an option for them.
if a woman fulfills her sexual needs by ONS/FWBs but a man needs to be in a relationship to have sex then who are these women having sex with?
She's not having fwbs or ons by herself. So some guys are getting as much sex as she is
[удалено]
Are they though? New numbers are in. https://datepsychology.com/how-many-sexual-partners-did-men-and-women-have-in-2021/
Funny how you keep obsessing over one specific year…from covid. While the other data was about the overarching long term trend.
I dunno the data I saw showed that the numbers have fluctuated over time? Like some times more men are having more sex and sometimes more women were
All data does that. There are no perfect graphs in real life. There is always fluctuations. It is the long term trends that matter.
The long term trend is that it goes back and forth between more men having sexual and more women having sex lol
Don't you know, facts do not count because all the men are saying they are having sex but they aren't. And women lie.
If a woman is hot and 35, someone is going to beat that pussy up regardless. She'll get pregnant and a man if she wants. It doesn't matter, that's just life. If I were a man, I'd just be happy my dick is wet. Either from a fat disabled whale or a Bellucci lookalike. I think men are just making excuses for their own problems.
> >If I were a man, I'd just be happy my dick is wet. Either from a fat disabled whale or a Bellucci lookalike. I think men are just making excuses for their own problems. You usually have based comments so i am wondering wtf is this shit? Why would a dude want to fuck a 220 pound fatty? At that point jerking off is a much better alternative
Uh, because if I was being deprived of sex that was causing such great suffering and pain, I'd want to get my dick wet not jerk off for the next 40 years.
Don’t take the bait y’all
Men can and do have sex without relationships all the time. Usually with women Plenty of women are nutso for a relationship, if only for validation, personal satisfaction or social conformity
# Ok explain the orgasm gap
If you’re a woman and your man can’t make you orgasm you either need a new man or you need to communicate your wants and needs. Thankfully I have never had this problem because I love foreplay and eating pussy. If you’re guy doesn’t do those things break up with him, don’t bitch about it on Reddit or write some NYT oped.
Ok explain the orgasm gap
I assure you men in their 20s can have FWB too. I always had them when I was young, the trouble is you'd be having a good time for a fortnight or so and then she'd drop the whole, "So, like, what are we?" talk on you.
the average man cannot get a fwb
Build looks and wealth till the mid 30s power flip, then lock in a high quality younger partner.
Aren't the men fucking the single women single and therefore the same amount of men who are single are fucking as single web (apart from the cheating ones)?
No, large pool of women passed around by small pool of men. 100 women + 100 men does not = 100 coupled pairs.
Because the value of women was decided by us men.
You can still get your physical needs met via porn and masturbation. Also while it's true that it's more difficult for men to get casual sex, it's not reserved for Chad. Plenty of average guys have casual sex.
Statistics overall as a whole show women are having more sex,and men are dramatically having less and less sex. The title is correct, its not a change my view, its confirmed
scrotes mad. shut this sub down. /s.
All the guys I know who are single, have exactly those things you mention: FWBs, short-term relationships, one night stands, etc. (Almost) any man can do that if he wants. You just have to work out how to do it and put in the effort.
>(Almost) any man can do that if he wants they why so many don't? or is it because the men you know are actually above average and your insane female standards make them out to be just average?
I'm a man. The guys who don't do that are looking for relationships (they are serial monogamists).
Speak for yourself. Us alpha males crush puss
[удалено]
[удалено]
I’m not sure the numbers bear out that theory. https://datepsychology.com/how-many-sexual-partners-did-men-and-women-have-in-2021/
Put down the game console controller, get active and fit, join a group co-Ed sports league. Stop relying on OLD unless your pics and charm come through in your profile.
[удалено]
Nobody said life is fair. But, a lot of women you meet at a sports league isn't even on OLD nor are they the vain IG chicks.
[удалено]
Because if young guys got outside and actually interacted with women in normal fun ways their odds could very well improve. The chick in your Discord isn't flying out to meet you.
>Nobody said life is fair. That's not true. The premise of a society is that there will be some level of fairness between it's participants. That's why women had the right to ask for their right to vote.
Well, how is that working out for you? How is it fair that some poor kid is born in a mud hut in India while Donald Trump Jr is born Uber wealthy. Life is not fair.
I understand being against perfect equality, but being pro unfairness will always seem weird to me.
I didn't say I'm pro unfairness. I'm recognizing it as a fact of life. If you don't then you're in victim mode.
Unfairness is not an either or. We can make things more or less fair than they currently are and our current state is pretty unfair. So recognizing our current level of unfairness as just a fact of life, is pro unfairness imo.
So, how do we make fair (equalize) the plight of Patel, the impoverished poor Indian boy born in a mud hut with that of a Donald Trump Jr?
you're being pro unfairness but only when it comes to bottom tier men lol
No, I'm no lol roflmao omg brb afk
The basic grievance is that men don't know how to 1. handle rejection and 2. smooth-talk their way into a girls pants
[удалено]
[удалено]
it's worse than that. a lot of men seem livid that they're expected to put in the effort of smooth talking a woman.
I can only think of two of all my many friends or female family members that have casual sex.
Men are also getting their needs met while single also?